Comprehensive coverage of personal injury and civil litigation

January 2015

January 27, 2015

A few days back, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments as to whether or not states can prevent judicial candidates from soliciting donations without violating their rights of free speech.

All over the coast of California, the state’s Supreme Court decided that judges there are prohibited to be part of non-profit associations that discriminate sex, sexual, orientation, race, and among other things, effectively excluding the Boy Scouts of America membership.

The group wasn’t included specifically by name but state rule, which will take effect in 2016, was proposed in the previous year in response to the Boy Scout’s policy of barring homosexuals from leadership or staff roles, which led to a fierce debate among California attorneys and judges.

The case of the U.S. Supreme Court describes political free speech rights of judges while state ethics rule of free association limits. Both raise the question as to how the protection of the First Amendment should be given to judges who are tasked to be impartial and fair.

Attorneys for plaintiffs dodged a bullet in the previous year when the U.S. Supreme court spared a 100-year old case, which served as a legal pin in today’s investor class action suit.

Despite such victory, new reports indicated that securities class actions have lost a bit of firepower.

While numerous security class actions filed in the federal court moved only a bit last year, the filing size measured by shareholder losses were a lot smaller in 2014 compared to the year before, according to a report released this week by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and by Cornerstone Research

What’s the reason behind the dip last year? One of them is the surge in the stock market last year, as indicated by Joseph A. Grundfest, a scholar from the Stanford Universities securities who helped set up the report.

The size of settlements in the previous year shrank, as reported by the NERA Economics Consulting on yearly trends regarding securities class actions. NERA, which recently revealed its report, observed that the average amount of settlement dipped by 38% to 61% last year compared to 2013, depending on the calculations done.

January 26, 2015

A court in Turkey threatens to halt entry to Facebook in the country if the social media giant fails to remain compliant in censoring Facebook pages deemed to be “an insult” to the Prophet Mohammad. Turkey’s state-operated news agency, Anadolu, broke the news early this week.

The order made by the country’s court early this week followed a request by the state prosecutor, according to TRT, the state’s broadcaster. None of the Facebook management was available for comment at the time.

It was one of the recent moves in the country to cracking down online content deemed “offensive” to religious groups in the country’s Muslim population, where its President Tayyip Erdogan is leaning towards an Islamist agenda.

Prosecutors early this month kicked off an inquiry into a local paper which reprinted certain parts of French satirical Charlie Hebdo in the wake of Islamic attacks in the offices of Paris.

The decision of the court was actually referred to the country’s telecommunications authority, according to Anadolu.

Oklahoma’s Attorney General Scott Pruitt submitted a request to delay the current executions of three male inmates until the Supreme Court is done looking into the legality of the state’s lethal injection process.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear out an appeal from death-row prisoners who question as to whether or not the state’s drug protocol --- new lethal drugs brought in after an April 2014 execution --- is compliant with the constitution against “unusual” punishments.

Early this week, Pruitt defended Oklahoma’s lethal injection process, but indicated of requesting a stay of the executions to ensure justice was properly carried out.

Two federal courts previously upheld the present process as constitutional. Pruitt is confident the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with the notion.

The original case involved several death-row prisoners to be executed, but one of the inmates, Charles Warner, was executed early this month after the high court gave the green light.

January 20, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court early this week overturned a Court of Appeals ruling that invalidated a patent by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. on a multi-sclerosis drug (Copaxone), offering the drug manufacturer a chance to stall generic competitors.

The court ruling gives new life to Teva’s ability to prevent competitors from making headway into the Copaxone market until the patent expiration this September.

It also serves as another rebuke by the SC to the Federal Circuit, a special court that listens to a bulk of the country’s patent appeals.

In the past few years, as patents are playing a bigger role in the country’s economy, the Supreme Court has dealt with numerous patent appeals and overturned many rulings from the Federal Court.

In a 7-2 decision made by the court, Justice Stephen Brever said the Federal Circuit needs to be deferential in studying determinations done by trial judges who look into patent infringement cases.

The religious freedom law allows a Muslim inmate to grow a half-inch beard, according the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling early this week, putting off concerns brought up by Arkansas prison officials in which inmates could hide contraband in beards.

The result showed how the SC, under Chief Justice John Roberts, is becoming deferential to religious pleas being exempted from general laws.

The argument made by prions is difficult to consider since over 40 state and federal prisons allow half-inch beards for religious, medical, and other reasons.

Justice Alito rejected an Arkansas prison’s claim that a beard ban can help identify prisoners, since they can easily change their look by shaving off their facial hair. The court also said that prisons can resolve this issue by taking pictures of inmates in both their bearded and non-bearded appearance.

In a court ruling for Gregory Holt, an inmate, the Supreme Court said that while prison security was potentially interesting, Arkansas failed to show ways in reaching its goals by forcing Holt to shave.

January 19, 2015

Mr. Khaled al-Fawwaz will going to a Manhattan federal court early this week for his alleged role in two U.S. embassy bombings 1998. This is part of the U.S. government’s efforts to try suspected terrorists in American courts.

al-Fawwaz, a Saudi national, is potentially facing a life sentence for allegedly working with al-Qaeda to kill American nationals, culminating in Tanzania and Kenya bombings that resulted to 224 deaths.

al-Fawwaz did not plead guilty to charges made against him. He has been living in exile in London, England prior to his U.S. extradition in 2012.

Prosecutors of the U.S. government claimed al-Fawwaz acted as a public relations representative for Osama Bin Laden. They claimed al-Fawwaz created a media office in London back in 1994 to publish statements made by Bin Laden and assisted in communication between al Qaeda cells.

Selection of jury for the trial is estimated to last up to three days.

The country’s legal battle on gay marriage could be on its last chapter, as the Supreme Court last week said it would make the final decision whether the U.S. constitution offers same sex couples marry.

The SC accepted challenges to gay marriage bans in several states ---- Ohio, Tennesse, Michigan, and Kentucky --- upheld by the federal court of appeals last year.

The SC brought up the issue in the court’s middle term after shooting down pleas by states to bring back marriage restrictions the court of appeals found unconstitutional. The 6th Circuit ruling, the first to restrict heterosexual marriage, led to a split in court circuits in October, forcing the Supreme Court to be involved.

The court made an agreement to hear questions on gay marriage laws and other extended arguments.

A court ruling that recognizes that constitutional right to gay marriage would it legal in the country. The SC will be hearing arguments this April before making a ruling this July.

January 13, 2015

The Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization will be going on trial this week at a Manhattan federal court. The civil suit accuses them of carrying out terrorist acts in Israel.

The trial, which is expected to last up to 12 weeks, will concentrate on multiple shooting and bombing attacks in Jerusalem from 2001 to 2004. The suit, which is over 10 years old, was filed by more than 40 American victims and relatives who suffered in the attacks, which wounded hundreds and killed 33.

The suit was filed based on the Antiterrorism Act of 1990, a law that allows American victims of international terrorism to file a suit in federal court, accuses the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the governing and political representative of Palestinians, of planning the attacks.

The plaintiffs are looking to claim $1 billion in damages. If both Palestinian groups lose, such damages would be tripled, since such claims made were terrorist acts.

Both Palestinian groups attempted to squash the suit, saying U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over them.

The now-defunct law firm’s three ex-leaders (Steven Davis, Joel Sanders, and Stephen DiCarmine) will appear in court this April 27 to start the trial, which is expected to last up to six months.

All three were accused of accounting fraud as part of a scheme to conceal the true nature of Dewey’s financial status, which led to the firm’s unexpected collapse in 2012. All three claimed to be innocent and are free on bails while awaiting trial.

In a New York Supreme Court early this week, the trio sat quietly while Justice Robert Stolz pressed counsel of both parties for a trial date. Stolz initially wanted a February start but both parties made delay requests.

Davis’ attorney, Elkan Abramowitz, said he’ll wait until he has knowledge of the Bermuda court outcome regarding the amount of insurance available for his client’s defense.